Search form

If SUSY fails to show up at the LHC, will it be reasonable to continue to use it as a basis for particle phenomenology? Might it be necessary to completely re-formulate SUSY as a fundamental principle in nature?

If SUSY fails to show up at the LHC, will it be reasonable to continue to use it as a basis for particle phenomenology? Might it be necessary to completely re-formulate SUSY as a fundamental principle in nature?

The scale of experiments will also change. They will be smaller scale so that riskier things can be tried.

But it is important to support efforts in physics even if they do not eventually lead to experimental verification. This is how scientific progress is done.

We do not think there is a need to modify of the theory.

It will be a massive “%$**-up”. There are too many resources being put into this effort. Creates a bad precedent and puts in question the future of the collider program given the increased scale required.

We didn't discuss SUSY much. These two quotes sum up our conversation.

“SUSY seems too artifical. I see bosons and I see fermions and I don't try to bring them together. And yet for some reason people try to bring them together.”

“SUSY is mathematically very beautiful and powerful mathematically. But the real system may not really be supersymmetric. Maybe nature is not TRULY SUSY, but is approximately SUSY. “

The question implies that SUSY is a basis for particle physics, but is that really true?